Skip to main content

Full text of "Poland Russia and Great Britain 1941-1945"

See other formats

any future British Governments intended to adhere to the commitments
bargained for in the Teheran black market. Churchill was forced to go
to Canossa, to renounce the principles of England., and give her the
same hall-mark of aggression by placing her alongside the Soviet Union,,
to abandon the Atlantic Charter and support the might of Russia against
the rights of Poland and the other European states. He was thrusting a
democratic Poland into the keeping of totalitarian Power. He was doing
his utmost to convince the Kremlin of the sincerity of his promises., as if
the Kremlin would, indeed, be convinced by any words, particularly any
of Churchill's. His speech of I5th December was of itself a most tragic
one. The doctrines and ideas, for which Hitler had been so severely
censured and condemned., and to prevent the spreading and realisation of
which Britain had unsheathed her sword., were revived in this speech
ad usum the stronger ally. The principles of Lebensraum> disguised
under the slogan of £ zone of security/ the theory of the resettlement of
vast numbers of population for the benefit of Russia, the doctrine of the
super-race; the theory of the omnipotence of the Great Powers and the
suppression of the rights of these masses of mankind which comprised
the array of so-called c small nations '—such was the gist of this speech.
It would only have seemed natural after this had Britain relinquished the
right to sit in judgment and condemn Hitler. The principle ofc vansit-
tartism,' total punishment for the Fuehrer and his accomplices, had re-
ceived a great set-back. Churchill's speech was completely at variance
with the aims which Britain had proclaimed when she embarked on the
war. In the fabric of the state organisation of Great Britain, it is the
King of England who expresses the basic ideas of the peoples of his
Empire and King George VI, on 3rd September, 1939, broadcast:—
" We are called with our Allies, to meet the challenge of a principle which,
if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilised order in the world. It
is the principle which permits a State, in the selfish pursuit of power, to
disregard its treaties and its solemn pledges; which sanctions the use of
force, or threat of force, against the sovereignty and independence of other
States. Such a principle, stripped of all its disguise, is surely the mere
primitive doctrine that might is right; and if this principle were established
throughout the world, the freedom of our country and of the whole British
Commonwealth of Nations would be in danger. But far more than this—
the peoples of the world would be kept in the bondage of fear, and all hopes
of settled peace and of the security of justice and liberty among nations
would be ended. This is the ultimate issue which confronts us.'5
There was no reflection of these ideas in the speeches made five years
later by the Prime Minister of Britain—they had been forgotten . . .
The sole advantage of Churchill's c fearless speech' as one of London's
dailies wrote, lay in its dispersal of the atmosphere of hypocrisy, false
pretences and obscurity. It was not so much that the * naked bones *
of the Polish problem were revealed, as a light was focussed on the deep
moral crisis which had arisen among the Great Powers on the grounds of